Introduction The novel coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) has spread rapidly with vast global implications. This study assessed how family physicians in Kansas responded to COVID-19 and the ...effects of the pandemic on the physicians' well-being. Methods. The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of 113 family physicians in Kansas between May 22, 2020 and June 25, 2020. The study participants completed an anonymous, 18-item survey assessing family physicians' concerns about being exposed to COVID-19, levels of personal depression, anxiety, stress, and burnout in addition to demographic information. Results. There was a 45.6% response rate, with 50.4% (n=57) of the respondents reporting manifestations of burnout. The physicians who personally treated any presumptive or confirmed COVID-19 patient, compared to those who did not, were more likely to report at least one manifestation of burnout (odds ratioOR=3.96; 95% confidence interval CI, 1.38-11.36; P = .011), experience emotional exhaustion (OR=3.21; 95% CI, 1.01-10.10; P<.05), and feel a higher level of personal stress (OR=1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.27; P=.011). Conclusion. Our findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 pandemic may be taking an emotional toll on family physicians in Kansas. This study provides a baseline from which to continue further monitoring of outcomes such as burnout, depression, anxiety, and stress, to determine the need for interventions, and influence the implementation of programs to support physician wellness. These data can help drive wellness and mental health support initiatives at local, state, and national levels to help diminish the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physicians.
Context: Primary aldosteronism (PA) is a common form of hypertension caused by excess production of the adrenal hormone aldosterone. Screening hypertensive patients with a simple blood test enables ...early detection and targeted treatment of PA, leading to fewer cardiovascular complications. Australian family physicians (FPs) rarely screen for PA, and screening rates are equally low among North American FPs. Limited awareness of PA is thought to explain the low screening rates in family practice. Objective: To understand the factors that influence an FP's decision to screen for PA in hypertensive patients. Study Design: Qualitative study using phenomenology to explore the experiences of FPs when screening for PA. Setting/Population: Set in South-East Melbourne, participating FPs had received an educational session on PA from an endocrinologist. We conducted semi-structured interviews with FPs who had screened at least one patient following the teaching session. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, entered into NVivo for coding, and analyzed for emerging themes. Results: The 16 participants varied by clinical experience (1-35 years), practice location (3 regional, 13 urban), and the number of patients screened for PA (1-44 patients). FPs overwhelmingly preferred screening newly diagnosed hypertensive patients over those already being managed with antihypertensive medications. Only a few FPs opted to screen all hypertensive patients, while the majority questioned the necessity of screening patients whom they thought fitted their clinical impression of essential hypertension. Many FPs found it challenging to both comply with testing requirements and interpret screening results within the existing organizational constraints of their practice. FPs that had diagnosed at least one patient with PA acknowledged the positive impact that targeted treatment had on patient wellbeing and this reinforced their role in assisting with the detection of PA. Knowledge and convenience of the screening process, the conceptualization of risk, and the perceived impacts of detecting PA were influencing factors that modified the FP screening experience. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that additional factors, other than limited awareness, influence a FP's decision to screen for PA. Our findings have the potential to inform future policy, practice, and training interventions to improve the detection of PA in family practice.
Context: On March 14, 2020, the Ontario, Canada health insurance plan approved COVID-19 physician virtual billing codes; family physicians (FPs) rapidly adopted a new model of care. Virtual care may ...remain post-pandemic; however, its future should be informed by evidence that considers access and continuity. Objective: 1) to determine FP virtual visit volumes and patient characteristics and 2) to explore FPs' perspectives on virtual visit adoption and implementation. Study Design: Mixed methods: Secondary analysis of health administrative (HA) data and semi-structured qualitative interviews with FPs. Setting or Dataset: London and Middlesex County, Ontario, Canada. HA data through ICES, Ontario entity holding data. Population studied: FPs and their patients. Outcome Measures: Volumes of FP in-person and virtual visits during early pandemic; characteristics of patients receiving care; FPs' perspectives on adopting and delivering virtual care. Results: Overall visit volume dropped by 36% during first wave, recovered to pre-pandemic levels by October 2020. Sharp in-person visit drop of 73% and virtual visit uptake from 0.08% of total visits to 57% within two weeks of March 2020. FPs described this initial drop in volume as patients not seeking care and practices lacking PPE. The move to virtual care was largely to telephone visits. Patient characteristics compared to pre-pandemic, the proportion seeking care were older (46 vs 50 years), more vulnerable (38% vs 41%), and more multimorbidity (33% vs 41%). This was consistent with FP reports that healthier patients stayed away, routine care deferred, sicker patients needed to be seen. FPs believed most vulnerable patients had access to care but cautioned highly vulnerable such as those homeless did not have cell phone access or a safe place to receive calls. Rural FPs reported access issues because of lack of high-speed internet. FPs attributed success of virtual care to the continuity in relationships they had with patients that were established in person pre-pandemic. Conclusions: FPs moved rapidly to virtual care. FP offices remained open despite PPE concerns but overall volumes dropped initially. Vulnerable and sicker patients received care but FPs expressed concern for highly vulnerable and rural residents. FPs believed they could offer patient-centred care over the phone but indicated the importance of maintaining in-person care to build relationships.
Context: The increasing pressure on primary care services calls for efficient approaches to assess the potential value of innovations and identify facilitators to their deployment in local contexts. ...Objective: To explore the value arguments of innovations in primary care identified as promising during Quebec College of Family Physicians' Symposia on Innovations and to propose avenues for their improvement and deployment. Methods: Ten innovations were selected using their ranking at the Symposia and pre-established criteria to ensure diversity. An evidence-informed multidimensional deliberative approach (clinical, populational, economic, organizational and sociocultural dimensions) was applied by a panel of 12 clinicians, managers, patients and citizens. Using data synthesized by dimension, each participant identified arguments on the value of each innovation and appraised them on a numerical scale. The arguments were discussed by the group, and a qualitative analysis with inter-rater validation of the deliberation was performed and the mean appraisal scores at the group level were calculated. These qualitative and quantitative data were synthesized and used as a basis for a second discussion with the group during which avenues for deployment were organized by thematic analysis. Results: Innovations fell into three categories: support for clinical processes (n=5), adaptation of the organization of care to vulnerable populations (n=3), and support for quality improvement (n=2). Innovations aiming at adapting the organization of care for vulnerable populations were considered of highest value overall. Quality improvement innovations received mixed appraisals and needed to be further developed in terms of their value proposition and organizational fit. Innovations to support clinical processes also received mixed appraisals; proposals for further development included keeping them up to date and integrating them with information systems. Conclusions: This study highlights the factors that influence the value of certain categories of primary care innovations as well as avenues for their improvement and implementation that can guide innovators. This work demonstrates that exploring complex innovations with a multidimensional deliberative approach including patients and citizens is useful to identify their value arguments from a comprehensive standpoint, which is essential to identify the best implementation avenues to optimize the creation of value in real life.
Little is known about the attitudes toward and adoption of telehealth services among family physicians (FPs), the largest primary care physician group. We conducted a national survey of FPs, randomly ...sampled from membership organization files, to investigate use of and barriers to using telehealth services.
Using bivariate analyses, we examined how telehealth usage affected FPs' identified barriers to using telehealth services. Logistic regressions show the factors associated both with using telehealth services and with barriers to using telehealth services.
Surveys reached 4980 FPs; 1557 surveys were eligible for analysis (31% response rate). Among FPs, 15% reported using telehealth services during 2014. After controlling for the characteristics of the physicians and their practice, FPs who were based in a rural setting, worked in a practice owned by an integrated health system or other ownership structure, and provided hospital/urgent/emergency care were more likely to use telehealth. Physician and practice characteristics by telehealth use status, sex of the physician, practice location, years in practice, care provided, and practice ownership were associated with the barriers identified.
Telehealth use was limited among FPs. Many of the barriers to using telehealth services cited by FPs are amenable to policy modification.
1 We used data from the 2018 American Medical Association Masterfile and the same methods of calculation as COGME to assess progress toward the recommendation, using an established method to account ...for hospitalists—physicians with primary care specialty training working primarily in hospitals (more than 90% of claims;2 Table 1 and Table 2). TABLE 2 National PC Physician Estimates, 2018 PC physician type No. of physicians % of all physicians % of PC physicians Family medicine 86,958 12% 40% General internal medicine 72,404 10% 33% General pediatrics 49,410 7% 23% General practice 4,620 1% 2% Geriatrics 3,816 1% 2% Total PC physicians 217,208 30% 100% CMS = Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; PC = primary care. Primary care physicians are more likely to provide care in rural areas and safety net settings relative to other subspecialties.5 Among noteworthy advocacy responses to these trends, major U.S. family medicine organizations have collectively declared a “25 by 30” goal, hoping to see 25% of all U.S. medical school graduates selecting the primary care discipline by 2030.6 Still, the need for policy attention to these developments is even greater and more acute today than in 2010.
A large, widening gap exists between the incomes of primary care physicians and those of many specialists. This disparity is important because noncompetitive primary care incomes discourage medical ...school graduates from choosing primary care careers. The Resource-Based Relative Value Scale, designed to reduce the inequality between fees for office visits and payment for procedures, failed to prevent the widening primary care-specialty income gap for 4 reasons: 1) The volume of diagnostic and imaging procedures has increased far more rapidly than the volume of office visits, which benefits specialists who perform those procedures; 2) the process of updating fees every 5 years is heavily influenced by the Relative Value Scale Update Committee, which is composed mainly of specialists; 3) Medicare's formula for controlling physician payments penalizes primary care physicians; and 4) private insurers tend to pay for procedures, but not for office visits, at higher levels than those paid by Medicare. Payment reform is essential to guarantee a healthy primary care base to the U.S. health care system.
Abstract Purpose To examine how family physicians', patients', and trained clinical raters' assessments of physician-patient communication compare by analysis of individual appointments. Methods ...Analysis of survey data from patients attending face-to-face appointments with 45 family physicians at 13 practices in England. Immediately post-appointment, patients and physicians independently completed a questionnaire including 7 items assessing communication quality. A sample of videotaped appointments was assessed by trained clinical raters, using the same 7 communication items. Patient, physician, and rater communication scores were compared using correlation coefficients. Results Included were 503 physician-patient pairs; of those, 55 appointments were also evaluated by trained clinical raters. Physicians scored themselves, on average, lower than patients (mean physician score 74.5; mean patient score 94.4); 63.4% (319) of patient-reported scores were the maximum of 100. The mean of rater scores from 55 appointments was 57.3. There was a near-zero correlation coefficient between physician-reported and patient-reported communication scores (0.009, P = .854), and between physician-reported and trained rater-reported communication scores (−0.006, P = .69). There was a moderate and statistically significant association, however, between patient and trained-rater scores (0.35, P = .042). Conclusions The lack of correlation between physician scores and those of others indicates that physicians' perceptions of good communication during their appointments may differ from those of external peer raters and patients. Physicians may not be aware of how patients experience their communication practices; peer assessment of communication skills is an important approach in identifying areas for improvement.
PDF
